P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 14‑Section 14 not applicable to evacuee occupancy rights. Masood Akhtar for Petitioner. Iftikhar‑ul‑Haq for Respondents. This matter relates to proceedings which were taken by the petitioner who is a confirmed allottee of occupancy rights for a partition of his share under the provisions of section 114 of the Tenancy Act. The officers below have proceeded on the assumption that this section is applicable to evacuee rights of occupancy but there is no such law which has been brought to my notice giving a person the right to invoke the provisions of section 114 of the Tenancy Act. The laws relating to evacuee 'property and settlement of displaced persons oust the jurisdiction of the ordinary law of the land unless in the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme prepared by the Chief Settlement Commissioner provision has been made for their application. In some cases the Chief Settlement Commissioner has provided for it (sic) any there is a specific provision which makes the Shariat Act applicable to cases of succession of lands held by permanent allottees under the Scheme. There is also a specific provision which authorities the Revenue Officers to deal with mutation of alienations, mortgage, sale etc., after evacuee land has been permanently allotted to a displaced person under the Scheme. No provision exists, or at least has not been brought to my notice, which gives authority to the revenue Courts to deal with the A extinction of occupancy rights in accordance with the provision of section 114 of the Tenancy. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this section itself only excepts evacuee lands in which occupancy rights exist and not lands the landlords of which are Muslims with non‑Muslim occupancy tenants who have migrated. The section lands itself to this somewhat fine interpretation but Evacuee laws override Provincial laws in respect of evacuee property and if this inter pretation is accepted it would be repugnant to the Evacuee laws which override it. In my opinion the provisions of the Tenancy Act have not been made applicable to occupancy evacuee rights in land irrespective of whether the landlord is a Muslim and the, occupancy tenant is a Hindu or whether the landlord is a Hindu' and the occupancy tenant is a Muslim. Various other issues have been raised primarily in respect of the interpretation of subsection 2 (b) of this section namely whether an occupancy tenant who has sub‑let his land would be entitled to have rights of ownership in proportion to his share of the gross produce or that the share of the sub‑tenants is not to be taken into account nor, the expenses of tillage, so that the land is to be divided in accordance with the share which goes to the landlord. For the purpose of deciding the three revision petitions before me these matters need not be gone into though I am not inclined to accept the interpretation which has been put on this section by the learned Additional Commissioner who divided the land between the occupancy tenant and the landlords in accordance with the share of the occupancy tenant after taking into account the share of the sub‑tenant. The three revision petitions, however, stand accepted on the first ground namely that the revenue Courts are not competent in applying the provisions of the Tenancy Act to evacuee occupancy rights. As a result the status which existed before should be restored and the parties should continue in the position of landlords and occupancy tenants till the provisions of the Tenancy Act are made applicable under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The cross‑objection filed by the respondents also stand dismissed. K. M. A. Petition accepted.